Common Alerting Protocol CAP v' 1'0

1
EO Systems
Obs. Products
Observation
Preprocessor
Observations Service
Raw obs. data
Observation Updates
History
Earth System Models
Analyzer
Model Results
Comparisons
EO Analysts
Analysis Products
Events Service
Forecasts Service
Forecast Products
Notifications
Policies, Practices Resources
Requirements Constraints
Options Opportunities
Social System Models
Action Planner
Emergency Managers
Messages
Orders Info
Public Warning Information Service
Response Activity
2

• Standards
• CAP (Common Alerting Protocol)
• FGDC (Federal Geospatial Data Committee)
• WMO and other domain-specific standards
• NIMS (National Incident Management System)
• OGC standards

3

• Constraints
• Need for timeliness from observation through
  detection through warning
• Uncertainty in observation, interpretation
• Conflicting observations
• Observational gaps (spatial, temporal and
  thematic)
• Connectivity Interoperability
• Ambiguous jurisdictions
• Inadequate models and history

4

• Issues
• Need for President to articulate the vision of
  standards-based, all-media, all-hazards public
  warning
• Investment in iterative engagement with emergency
  service system providers
• Standardization
• Mutual education of users and providers
• Refinement and dissemination of models (earth
  and social)
• Integration of social science learnings with
  emergency management practice

5

• Enablers
• Government funding for key people (non-federal
  governmental, non-governmental, commercial,
  academic) to engage with IEOS.
• Energies of the open source community
• Focus of attention and urgency (public,
  political)
• Greater awareness of usability issues
• Maturing and convergence of technology and
  provider community